|
I. Prolegomenon
Synodical and District officials have traveled about and circulated
encyclicals pontificating that the cited resolutions are divisive, since
Rev. SP Kieschnick and Rev. DP Benke's errors are after all much ado about
nothing. Moreover, these men argue that not following adjudication procedures only aggravates strife. To the contrary, this summary
defends these resolutions, because our leaders' errors so egregiously
undermine the foundation of faith.
II. Definitions
Since theology is much about definitions, adequate working definitions are
required. Consulting the Westminster Dictionary of Theological
Terms, A Dictionary of Philosophy, The Concordia Cyclopedia, Webster's 9th
Collegiate Dictionary and Webster's 2nd & 3rd International
Dictionaries, the following definitions span the issue at hand:
Sectarian. Something/someone causing division or separation based upon narrow,
parochial views, often erroneous or trivial, characterized by
zealous bigotry.
Syncretism/Unionism. A collection of views lacking coherence or logical unity:
flagrant, uncritical compromise in religion that is illogical and
leads to inconsistency between conflicting or divergent beliefs or principles,
an "agreement to disagree" justifying joint worship and work
between parties not united in doctrine. While synonyms, syncretism connotes
interfaith-ism, unionism ecumenism.
III. Porism I
Objection 1. These resolutions make demands and state judgments without following
proper adjudication procedures. Therefore, these resolutions are divisive, sectarian.
Objection 2. These resolutions move to hasty conclusion and overreach. These
matters remain open for debate and resolution. Lacking Synodical consensus, therefore, these resolutions are divisive, sectarian.
Objection 3. These resolutions hinge upon arcane doctrine about fellowship,
which lacks consensus. Haggling over such narrow doctrinal
points is divisive, sectarian.
To the contrary, Scripture gives His sheep judgment over Shepherds. Moreover,
Scripture commands His sheep mark and avoid false shepherds.
But I answer that Truth necessarily antagonizes error ever more than Israelis
Arabs. As someone wrote, "Doctrine divides . separating the
sheep from goats." Here the paradox of God's Truth becomes
manifest for the Church catholic: its fragrance draws His sheep, but
offends sheep of other folds and its stench repels predators. The
Church's unity is not sentimental chumminess predicated upon some nebulous
love of God and brotherhood of man. Rather, the sinews of pure
doctrine unify and vivify the Church. For it is within the
fellowship of pure Gospel doctrine that the Church abides: where there
abounds love for doctrinal truth, there also genuine love for one another
abounds. Therefore, these resolutions
edify the church.
Objection 1, reply. First, since Dr. SP Bohlmann's tenure (1992), the disputes
resolution process has been turned topsy-turvy and vitiated.
Today, the procedure now argues as if Biblical truth is unknown. The decisions
of both Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions are clearly
manifest in this matter. Second, executive fiat denied Churches means for
earnestly reclaiming erring brethren or disciplining them in an
orderly manner. Moreover, no valid jurisprudence allows the accused and accomplices
serve as judges, jury and executioners. Thus, Churches have already been deprived valid judicial process to remove false teachers and impious
forms of worship. Hence, our Synod faces permanent and irrevocable toleration of false doctrine and practice, to wit, heterodoxy.
Therefore, the objection's demand is sectarian as specious..
Objection 2, reply. To the contrary, the resolutions are somewhat "too little,
too late." Facts and circumstances are public record. The Apostles
themselves clearly established orthodox church fellowship practice and its
discipline. Church fellowship isn't an open question. Our
adversaries wouldn't be convinced were someone raised from the dead. The
schism resides in our adversaries' minds and hearts.
Objection 3, reply. Scripture itself establishes proper church fellowship practice.
Our Lutheran Confessions also speak of church fellowship,
albeit not using that term per se. Rather than arcane, church fellowship practices
impinge directly upon the foundation of faith, as discussed in
Porism II, below. Only Scripture's consensus matters, for faithful Jeremiah,
like Elijah, stood alone amidst the prophets' consensus. Sectarians, to
the contrary, sever church fellowship from the body of Scripture doctrine
and the Church's controlling marks.
IV. Porism II
Objection 1. 11Sep01's terrorist attacks were diabolical evil of heretofore-unknown
enormity. CTCR requirements allow exceptions in extraordinary
circumstances. Therefore, Rev. SP Kieschnick and Rev. DP Benke's
actions fall within LCMS' fellowship constraints.
Objection 2. Our current post-modern, post-Christian world requires a different
response from the Church than that of our forefathers.
Therefore, LCMS fellowship protocols are arcane modalities, artifacts of bygone
eras. Hence, ecumenical and interfaith engagements must be
premised on individual relationships.
Objection 3. Such extraordinary circumstances provide extraordinary opportunities
to witness. Lutherans must seize this opportunity.
Objection 4. This imbroglio is just much about personal animosity and church
politics. Those opposing Rev. SP Kieschnick and Rev. DP Benke are just
mean spirited "Taliban".
To the contrary, it is written, "You will worship no other
gods." And,". from such withdraw thyself." And
elsewhere, "Paul also commanded that ungodly teachers should be shunned and execrated. for Paul warns that bishops
who teach and defend false doctrine and impious forms of worship are to be
considered accursed." And yet somewhere else, "It is important to
point out again and again that in all Scripture there is not a single text
permitting a teacher to deviate from the Word of God or granting a child
of God license to fraternize with a teacher who deviates from the Word of
God."
But I answer that this issue can be readily and unambiguously dispatched without
acrimony when considering the facts using the following criteria provided by Professor Marquart (See The Church: Her Fellowship, Ministry and
Governance, p. 47-49):
1. Were the public prayers a profession of either the Church's faith
(fides quae) or a personal profession of faith (fides qua); and,
2. Were Rev. SP Kieschnick and Rev. DP Benke acting officially during events
post-11Sep01; and,
3. Was the whole Gospel counsel clearly confessed; and,
4. Was every opposing error rejected and denounced; and,
5. Was error assigned equal right with truth; and finally,
6. Was an impression of unity in faith feigned when it did not exist?
Failure in any one point affirms of our thesis.
Thus, I answer that prayer is a response to the Gospel, that is, only Christians
may pray. Public prayer, then, becomes a public profession of faith
and worship, a fact both men acknowledge. Neither Rev. SP Kieschnick
nor Rev. DP Benke stated reasons for their eternal hope much
less that of their church. Therefore, both men failed to make the public profession
this crisis, their church and their Master demanded of them.
Such negligence is sinful as cowardly.
I further answer that these men, at their respective occasions, acted officially
as LCMS representatives, deploying Synodical ministry assets.
Thus, when acting officially, a pastor is constrained to act according to his
confession and ordination vow - for, in truth, he is acting according
to the office bestowed upon him as steward of that office, and not as if lord
over his personal possession. Regardless, each man acted in his
official capacity, not privately, and against professed conscience. Such malfeasance
is immoral.
I further answer that at neither occasion was the full Gospel counsel clearly
pronounced. Thus, no one could come to a saving knowledge of
Christ. In fact, Rev. DP Benke's prayer is tantamount to express and specific
denial of the Gospel. Lacking that Gospel proclamation, Rev. DP Benke offered false comfort to impenitent sinners and undermined the faith
of the weak. Therefore, Rev. DP Benke acted immorally. Rev. SP
Kieschnick defends and approves his and Rev. DP Benke's omission.
I further answer that at neither occasion were outstanding errors denounced
and rejected. The LCMS declared ELCA heterodox. Yet, Rev. SP Kieschnick failed to denounce/reject grave errors extant in the ELCA.
In fact, Rev. DP Benke cited these differences as "trivial".
Furthermore, Rev. DP Benke failed to denounce/reject errors of false religions and sects
present at Yankee Stadium. Moreover, there wasn't even earnest attempt at resolving differences. Rev. Benke even concedes this affair was
"syncretistic". Therefore, Rev. DP Benke and Rev. SP
Kieschnick failed to reject and denounce every opposing error. Such omissions are likewise
immoral.
I further answer that Rev. DP Benke's prayer and remarks were ambiguous, if
not deistic. Furthermore, coupled with that, Yankee Stadium's
"Oprahfest" didn't even presuppose Christianity's superiority,
at large, nor, much less, that way of the sola fide, particularly.
Moreover, ELCA
denies that way sola scripturas. Hence, equal billing was assigned to truth
and error. This, too, is immoral. Rev. SP Kieschnick defends
and
approves his and Rev. DP Benke's misbehavior.
I finally answer that Rev. DP Benke's prayer and remarks provide a clear assertion
of strength and unity. Failing to cite ELCA's errors, Rev. SP Kieschnick tacitly expressed unity with a heterodox "Reconciled-In-Christ"
ELCA congregation by participating in their worship. Feigning an
absent unity and strength is immoral - a deliberate misplacing of
predicates. Rev. SP Kieschnick defends and approves his and Rev. DP Benke's actions.
Objection 1, Reply. Regardless however extraordinary circumstances, one may
not err with respect to the foundation of faith, to wit, the Gospel, especially pastors acting in official capacity. Yet, both Rev. SP
Kieschnick and Rev. DP Benke erred morally with respect to the foundation of faith, thereby injuring the weak and damning the impenitent. Extraordinary
circumstances may dictate local tactics but not exceptions to global
strategy, to wit, proclaiming the entire Gospel counsel.
Objection 2, Reply. All men, regardless of time and circumstance, are saved
by faith alone in the self-same promises of the Gospel. Men may
cleverly disguise and repackage their sins to conform to an era's Zeitgeist,
but at core they redound to the same sin: pride and enmity
with God. Since neither man nor the Gospel has changed, neither has the basis
for fellowship changed. I cannot know what is in another man's
heart, because faith and love are hidden. But, I can test for truth
of a confession full well knowing that where truth abides so also genuine
love. Thus, fellowship occurs along the lines of church confession
(fides quae) not persons (fides qua).
Yet, important churchmen issue calls for "new mission paradigms", "transformation",
and a "new vocabulary". The implication is that God's
Word is insufficient, because it needs further revelation - Mohammed would
be most pleased to hear this. To the contrary, these churchmen
ought return to that paradigm "delivered once and for all unto the
saints."
God uses calamities and disaster, like 11Sep01, as sieves to sift mankind
for His elect ones. Existential crises often unstop man's ears
such
that he may at least listen to God's Word. Thus, rather than
compromise, Lutherans must then preach the Gospel undiluted, lest the
opportunity
vanish.
Objection 3, Reply. True enough! Yet, the Gospel was not proclaimed
in this circumstance, rather great harm was done, because the Gospel was effectively denied. Perhaps ignorance and ineptitude now correlate
to zeal for the Gospel? Jude 22-24 must be recalled here that we be wary lest our own feet slip while assisting another. God also allows
calamities to test whether His children will obey His commands.
Rather, with respect to false teachers, "avoid them"!
Objection 4, Reply. Sin taints all human endeavors regardless how noble.
Nevertheless, Scripture commands calling erring brethren to account and
repentance. Perhaps our adversaries' stubbornness and anger are
means to salve their convicted consciences? Thus, derisive ad
hominems like "Taliban" "and "speed bumps" are
wholly unwarranted and sectarian, divisive.
V. Conclusion.
Therefore, I conclude that both Rev. SP Kieschnick and Rev. DP Benke
delinquently discharged their duties, acted willfully both against
conscience and confession, and thereby disgracing the Gospel and harming
the weak. Moreover, each mustered rhetorical sophistry and political
subterfuge for their defense and suborned others to defend them rather
than humbly repent. Hence, both Rev. SP Kieschnick and Rev. DP Benke
must be summarily deposed from office to protect their souls and curtail
further bickering and corruption from their mischief - they must be shunned and disobeyed, as their betrayal disqualifies them from ministry.
May God Almighty deliver us from these wild boars!
Missouri stands at a nexus. Zeal for the Gospel is identical with
zeal for doctrine. Will Missouri remain faithful to God's Word or
continue
her death spiral into baptomethicostalism, to wit, paganism? Those
who approve and defend error partake its punishment. If we're not
faithful,
He will withdraw His Word from us, for we will have sinned against the
Spirit of Truth.
|